Introduction

The landmark judgment in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy (2022 INSC 963) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on September 15, 2022, addresses the legality of the Pharmacy Council of India's (PCI) decision to impose a moratorium on the establishment of new pharmacy colleges. The case revolves around the PCI's resolutions dated July and September 2019, which sought to regulate the proliferation of pharmacy institutions to prevent an oversupply of pharmacists leading to unemployment.

The primary parties involved include the Pharmacy Council of India as the appellant and various educational institutions as respondents challenging the PCI's resolutions. The core issues pertain to the PCI's authority to impose such restrictions without legislative backing and the fundamental rights of institutions to establish educational establishments under the Constitution of India.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave in all the Special Leave Petitions filed by the PCI, effectively dismissing the appeals. The court primarily focused on the PCI's resolutions imposing a moratorium on new pharmacy colleges, deeming them as executive instructions rather than laws enacted by the legislature. Consequently, the court held that such executive actions cannot impose restrictions on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which includes the right to establish educational institutions.

The judgments from the High Courts of Karnataka, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh, which were in favor of the institutions challenging the PCI's resolutions, were upheld. The Supreme Court concluded that the PCI lacked the statutory authority to impose a blanket moratorium without proper legislative enactment, thereby safeguarding the constitutional rights of the educational institutions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases to support its decision. Notably:

• Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1954 SC 634 - Affirmed the regulatory authority of statutory bodies.
• Star India Private Limited v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (2019) 2 SCC 104 - Discussed the limits of regulatory powers.
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 - Recognized the fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g).
• State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh (2006) 2 SCC 545 - Clarified that executive actions cannot infringe upon rights without legislative backing.
• Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. Central Board of Secondary Education (2021) 7 SCC 535 - Discussed the nature of laws under Article 13 in the context of statutory bodies.

These precedents collectively underscored the necessity for regulatory actions to have a clear legislative mandate, especially when they impinge upon fundamental rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on the distinction between executive instructions and laws enacted by the legislature. The PCI's moratorium was implemented through resolutions, which the court classified as executive actions lacking legislative authority. According to the Constitution Bench, any restriction on fundamental rights, such as establishing educational institutions, must be grounded in valid law enacted by a competent legislature.

The Supreme Court examined the Pharmacy Act, 1948, under which the PCI operates, and determined that while the PCI has regulatory powers, these do not extend to imposing broad prohibitions without explicit legislative authorization. The court further highlighted that executive instructions cannot substitute laws in restricting fundamental rights, reinforcing the principle that statutory bodies can only act within the confines of their statutory mandates.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for regulatory bodies in India. It reaffirms the supremacy of legislative authority over executive actions, especially concerning fundamental rights. Educational institutions now have a clearer path to challenge regulatory decisions that may infringe upon their constitutional rights. Additionally, regulatory bodies like the PCI will need to seek explicit legislative mandates before imposing broad restrictions, ensuring that their actions are constitutionally sound.

Furthermore, the decision encourages transparency and adherence to due process within regulatory frameworks, fostering a balanced approach between regulation and the preservation of fundamental rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy serves as a pivotal affirmation of constitutional principles governing fundamental rights in India. By striking down the PCI's moratorium imposed through executive resolutions, the court reinforced the necessity for regulatory actions to be firmly rooted in legislative authority. This judgment not only upholds the fundamental rights of educational institutions to establish and administer themselves but also delineates the boundaries within which regulatory bodies must operate.

Moving forward, regulatory authorities must ensure that their decisions, especially those that impact fundamental rights, are backed by clear legislative mandates. Educational institutions can draw confidence from this judgment, knowing that their constitutional rights are protected against arbitrary regulatory actions. Ultimately, this case underscores the delicate balance between regulation in the public interest and the preservation of individual constitutional freedoms.